EU Democracy Promotion in Eastern ENP Countries

Buşcaneanu, Sergiu

doi:10.1177/0888325414535430

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This behaviour has been explained with concern to preserve European regional interests as well as with the maintenance of institutional routines in the EU apparatus (Noutcheva, 2014). A similar situation has been stated for the eastern neighbours where the EU has continued to speak in favour of democratic change but has not significantly revamped its assistance to democratization (Buscaneanu, 2015, see also Smith, 2015.…”

Section: Democracy Promotionmentioning

confidence: 75%

On the fringes of the European peace project: The neighbourhood policy’s functionalist hubris and political myopia

Lavenex

2016

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The destabilization of Eastern Europe and of the Southern Mediterranean has exposed the limits of the European peace project. Obviously, the European Neighbourhood Policy has not succeeded in boosting peace and prosperity. This article attributes this failure to a combination of functionalist hubris and political myopia that emanates from the European Union's peculiar constitution as a regulatory power with weak political union. While the projection of the European Union's single market acquis has set over-ambitious targets, the needs of the partner countries and the wider geopolitical implications of the Neighbourhood Policy have received little political attention. In sum, the experience at the fringes of the European peace project not only unveils the limits of the European Union as a foreign policy actor, but it also raises more theoretical questions on the notion of 'liberal peace'.

show abstract

Section: Democracy Promotionmentioning

confidence: 75%

On the fringes of the European peace project: The neighbourhood policy’s functionalist hubris and political myopia

Lavenex

2016

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some argue that membership would certainly benefit Georgia and Moldova, primarily because membership helps distance these states from Russia (Pifer et al 2015, Fruhling and Lasconjarias 2016, Paszewski 2016, Fiott 2016, although others argue that these states are much better off without the EU or NATO (Crocker 2015, Lukin 2015, Pifer et al 2015, Makarychev 2015, Kazharski and Makarychev 2015, Paenke 2015, Vilson 2015, Arbatova and Dynkin 2016. The argument against EU and NATO membership stems, in part, from the perception that the EU and NATO do not really want to expand but are dangling the carrot of membership in front of Georgia and Moldova simply to stabilize and democratize the region: not because they actually intend to expand (Boedeltje and van Houtum 2011, Dimitrovova 2012, Joenniemi 2012, Cottey 2012, Bechev 2015, Buscaneanu 2015, Dragan 2015. In other words, the EU and NATO hope to have the benefits of a strong neighborhood without having to pay the price to get it.…”

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Does Latvia Matter in Regional Geopolitics?

Lamoreaux

Dyerly

2018

Journal on Baltic Security

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As early as 1994, scholars, analysts and policymakers began to wonder the extent to which the Baltic States mattered in the relationship between Russia and the West. The general consensus for the following 20 years was that the Baltic States matter considerably, especially following their inclusion in both the EU and NATO in 2004. However, in the past few years two trends have emerged which begin to call this accepted knowledge into question. First, the relationship between Russia and the West has turned more hostile following nearly 20 years of detente. The West insists (especially NATO) insists that it is within its right to protect states that were formerly part of the Soviet Union/Russia’s “near abroad”. Russia, on the other hand, insists that NATO incursion into the “shared neighborhood” is a violation of trust and overstepping normal geopolitical bounds.Second, the Baltic States who once presented something of a united front for the West against Russia, no longer appear to have a common approach to foreign policy. While Estonia leans toward Scandinavia, and Lithuania leans toward Poland and Ukraine, Latvia is a bit of an odd man out with nowhere to turn. Furthermore, even other states in the Shared Neighborhood no longer seem to see Latvia as a valuable ally within the West. Considering this state of affairs, this paper considers whether Latvia matters anymore in regional geopolitics, or whether they are losing relevance.

show abstract

“…For this reason, the EU placed great emphasis on upholding and promoting democratic values and practices in its neighborhood. The EU's expectations in this regard were based on its successful experience in contributing to the consolidation of democracy in CEECs (Buscaneanu, 2015). However, unexpectedly, the promotion of democratic values in the Eastern ENP countries appeared to be very difficult.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stabilization through institutionalization?: institutionalization of external relations as a success factor in the reform process

Stryjek

2017

EurInsStud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper aims to answer the question why the process of institutionalization of the EU's external relations with its six neighboring countries, representing the Eastern dimension of European Neighborhood Policy (i.e., Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine), has failed to perform its stabilization role. The study is analytical and descriptive in nature. Its results indicate three reasons for which the aforementioned institutionalization process has not been successful, and thus -the EU's neighborhood has become even more unstable than it was over a decade ago. The first reason is rooted in the applied integration model. The model expected the EU's neighbors to undergo deep reforms, without offering them the EU membership 'reward'. In this regard, the EU's offer not only failed to meet the expectations of the neighbors in question, but also appeared to be partly misunderstood. In consequence, the Eastern ENP countries considered the decision on their potential EU membership to be exclusively political, as well as underestimated the importance of the previously agreed reforms. As regards the second reason for the unsuccessful development of the institutionalization process, the Eastern ENP countries found it very difficult to reach a high level of 'embeddedness' of the transferred formal institutions in their socio-economic environment. Finally, the institutionalization process has also faced difficulties due to the geopolitical rivalry between the EU and Russia over the region. The actions and policies undertaken by Russia not only influenced the (political and economic) decisions of the EU's Eastern neighbors, but also clearly showed that the institutionalization of their relations with the EU neither provided for them protection nor guaranteed defense. According to the presented theoretical approach, this serves as an explanations why the stabilization function of the institutionalization process was not able to perform its role.

show abstract

EU Democracy Promotion in Eastern ENP Countries

Cited by 7 publications

References 22 publications

On the fringes of the European peace project: The neighbourhood policy’s functionalist hubris and political myopia

On the fringes of the European peace project: The neighbourhood policy’s functionalist hubris and political myopia

Does Latvia Matter in Regional Geopolitics?

Stabilization through institutionalization?: institutionalization of external relations as a success factor in the reform process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About